Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
posted 04-20-2008 01:38 PM
Can we all agree here that ANY examiner who decides to air dirty polygraph laundry on a "how to beat the polygraph" website such as antipolygraph.org is a self-serving idiot? This, like the Marston school report being leaked to George, is a high form of stupidity that only erodes the business further than it already is. Whether Eric Holden and others are taking kickbacks or not, for Joe Mcarthy---a Texas examiner who isn't getting enough referrals in the Dallas FT Worth area---to be so vindictive as to promote his lawsuit on antipolygraph is the highest form of insult.
Clearly Joe has problems----as do many----in trying to make a consistent living as a private examiner. He is an upstart in a flooded market----and based on his extremely careless remarks regarding challenging his rivals to a polygraph death match, only to then state on the record that polygraph examiners can easily defeat CQ tests----well, he has basically let his personal insanity demonstrate to our enemies that we as polygraph examiners are in part comprised of a group of some really dumb people. So, IS Joe McCarthy a moron?
answer; Yes, yes he is a moron.
Here is what he wrote on antipolygraph yesterday;
-------------------------------quote---- Yes, this is Joe McCarthy. I have been watching this discussion board ever since the suit became “public”.
I looked over the discussions and considered every point. Some are good and others are just plain piss poor. While thinking, pontificating, and doing deep thought brain thingies in my mind on the events for the past few months, I realized that the answer was right in front of me. POLYGRAPH.
This is a case about polygraph examiners and therapists that believe in polygraph. Probation relies on polygraph as a tool it to put people back in prison. Let’s note that some of the people belong there. Clearly, they do not have a problem using polygraph as a tool in their arsenal. So here is what I was thinking.
I said to myself “Self, what if everyone stipulated to a polygraph exam? Everyone, the examiners, the therapists, even the two probation officials. Have an INDEPENDENT polygraph examiner come in and polygraph each and every person on the front captioning of the lawsuit except for the lawyers. We don’t want to blow up the instrument. I already caught them in a few lies. I will let them guess which ones.
The tests will consist of relevant questions agreed upon by all examiners, therapists, probation officials, and their lawyers. All parties will be identified by number chosen by lot. A representative of the Court and the INDEPENDENT examiner will be the only two people who will know the true identity of each number.
The test format will have to be an R&I because if there is anyone that could get around a control question test, it’s a polygraph examiner. Because therapists and the probation officials can be coached, they will be given an R&I as well. After the charts are collected, they will be scored numerically through ROSS and globally by the administrating examiner. Copies will be made of all charts with the identifying information redacted from them and new identifier will be put on the charts to ensure that this next step will be one hundred fair. The only person who will know the true identity of each chart will be the Judge and his representative. All the newly identified charts will be given to each polygraph examiner involved in this action and one additional examiner who is not involved with this action, who is not the original examiner, and who is no one that the original examiner may know.
The charts will be blind quality controlled by each polygraph examiner through ROSS and globally. The score sheet will then be attached to each chart with a notarized affidavit. For all you guys that do not know what ROSS is, I will be more than happy to educate you. The scored charts along with the affidavit and score sheets will be sent back to the court where a court officer will then properly identify each chart. The identities of each chart will then be released to the lawyers and their clients. Inconclusives will count as a DI and obvious miscoring will leave the examiner open to perjury, contempt of court, and any sanction available.
If they are telling the truth that there is no intentional exclusive agreements to manipulate the market, offering and/or receiving of kickbacks, favoritism, creating monopolies, or intentionally pushing of anyone out of this market by unlawful restriction of trade, then they should not have a problem with taking the exam that is relied on so heavily by all the parties involved. I know that I have no problem with it because I have done nothing in bad faith.
It should be interesting to see how many step forward.
The reason why I am posting this on Antipolygraph.org is because I believe that this will be the only forum in which I can be heard. On top of that, I can rest assured that the responses will be watched very closely by all.
I will try to keep the people on this board updated on the responses received or the sounds of deafening silence that I hear. I will also be setting up a blog so regular updates can be posted along with all documents that are of public record.
Maybe this will put the issue to rest. Maybe it will aggravate the issue. No matter what it does, it will cause discussion and provoke thought about the polygraph industry and if the people in the industry are truly “dedicated to the truth”.
I have thrown down the gauntlet. I have called you all out. I will be counting the day for a response and will post the response of each person either here or on the blog.
The fax is on people.
Now in the eloquent words of Mick Foley
“Have a nice day! "
Joe McCarthy ---------------------------------unquote-----
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-20-2008).]
posted 04-20-2008 05:17 PM
I have a few questions:
1. Who trained this guy? 2. How long has he been an examiner? 3. What's Eric Holden's take on all this? 4. Can anyone get to this person in some way and try to convince him to take his a-- off of AP.org?
posted 04-20-2008 07:42 PM
What's his beef (in short)? I only saw this post when I took a quick look at the ten most recent the other day. I didn't recognize the name or his dispute, so I thought it was bogus or I was missing something.
I don't mind asking those involved what the problem is. It just seems strange that those of us who try to pay attention to what's going on have to hear of his dispute on the AP site.
It sounds like he's having a hard time taking business away from people who have already established good working relationships with those they serve. I'm having a hard time seeing the problem, but then again, I haven't read the whole thing. I can bring myself to look tonight. I'm relaxed and want to stay that way.
posted 04-20-2008 09:28 PM
My source is unavailable tonight. This is exactly why the APA needs a real internet presence----he could have brought this issue to the attention of the general membership or here in this forum. Instead, he pulled a Jane Fonda out of stupidity and pain----and took his woes not just to court---but he is the informer on Holden's sexual harrassment accusations to George. George refused to tell me who his informer was some weeks ago---but is there any doubt at this point?
posted 04-20-2008 11:09 PM
Does anyone see the need for a legal requirement, either at the state or federal level, for membership of polygraph examiners in the APA? Thereby establishing a forum for complaints such as Charley McCarthy's. Ooops! that's another dummy. I don't believe that McCarthy is a member of APA, although he is listed with TAPE. I thought is was ridiculous to use the analogy of maintaining a list like the PD's do for tow-trucks, and other service providers. Like any professional, an examiner spends a career building their reputation. Other than the issue of habituation, I agree that both the PO and the therapist should employ the team concept with examiner's they are familiar with and have confidence in based on performance. I also support the idea that when we join a professional oversight organization like the APA, our performance is an open book, subject to QC, by a committee. I'm not familiar with the by-laws of TAPE, but it seems that McCarthy should be sanctioned by that organization for not seeking satisfaction (that should be) provided for through their channels. The bottom line is if McCarthy doesn't like the local situation, then it's a free country and he can move to somewhere he thinks his skills will be appreciated (maybe move in with Grogan). But those are my thoughts, and its past my bedtime.
posted 04-21-2008 08:14 AM
Brunswick, I understand your negative feelings toward my antipoly analogy of court ordered alcohol treatment providers and even tow truck company referals being divided up equally among the providers. It makes us examiners uncomfortable with the notion that we can work our asses off to gain the track-record and trust of our cohorts, only to have a government agency make the talent wait in line with the serfs. In our profession, we certainly have a pecking order---a true meritocracy if there ever was one. Therapists have the same. Hell, veteran plumbers are even offended being lined up with fellow hacks/greenhorns in their respective professions.
Unfortunately, your judgement is clouded regarding these matters. One can easily shepard laws (find laws) and see that states are one by one seeing uneven government referrals as being unconstitutional. Joe McCarthy, while obviously a moron for sitting on the tank of our enemy to taunt the status quo, is 100% correct. I wouldn't admit such at antipoly---simply because that is no forum, it's a viper pit to exploit our industry's weaknesses and folly. As spacious as we know the good and bad disparity between chart rollers and talent---the experienced and thoughtful examiner from the moronic variety----the government must give referals equally and without prejudice. The federal government, while no model of egalitarianism---just see the ludicrous amount of no-bid work given to Haliburtin "talent"---is very clear about this type of commerce--as well as the states. It's called a racket.
So, while we all feel a little uncomfortable relegating our (PCSOT) modality to that of simple vendor service---it is just that. Welcome to municipal-awarded social services---and one by one each state will follow suit---as this battle,while it seems rather new in Dallas, has been fought dozens of times to abolish commerce protectionism (fascism)--a crime in a capitalistic system.
p.s. I'm sorry I forgot to return your email man---you wouldn't believe how flakey I've been lately---waaay too much stuff on my plate. I'll call you today!
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-21-2008).]
posted 04-21-2008 08:50 AM
There is a little glitch in this logic (and I still don't know the whole story). Eric Holden is a therapist too. Why wouldn't a therapist want to send his clients to another therapist / polygraph examiner over a guy with just polygraph training? I don't see that as a problem.
Not all examiners are created equal. Why would anybody want to try out somebody new when what works, in thier opinion, isn't broken?
Our prosecutors and officers here shop for examiners they trust. They just don't take the next guy on the list. Why should we mandate others do the same?
Graduate of Skyhawk poly inst approx 2-3 yrs ago (the last class of Sam's Dixon, Il school)
Wife is an attorney, having worked with a reputable law firm until allegedly being dismissed over the present lawsuit against Holden and others----conflict of some sort.
Interned with a Dallas area examiner.
Unknown previous occupation.
Barry, you are expressing the very real discomfort with willy nilly contract awarding. But again, who says who is good and who is not? It is a very slippery slope between preferred contracters and racketeering. Individual contracters choosing fellow contractors is not an optimal system----versus your example of municipal bodies choosing their contracters they prefer.
In pcsot, the majority of participating and consequently--decision makers, are themselves, contract folks. We have in many states a system of multi-layered contracters---choosing contracters amongst several qualified participants. I worked for years as a contracters FOR a contracter, surrounded by contracters. No insurance, no benefits, no gurantees (ahem contracts)---and too many nebulous mechanisms deciding who gets the tests. For the first year and a half of my career, I worked part time teaching drums while trying to break in to the field. I rose to the top of my game to look around and see that I conquered very little, accrued much debt, and saw more incompetace than I care to stomach. It's not the people that makes pcsot so difficult (I love the fellow contracters mostly), it's the lousey pay, long hours with no benefits, and complete lack of tangible rewards/advancement for merit.
Sigh. I should have joined the Army.
Joe is in the wrong business.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-21-2008).]
posted 04-21-2008 10:31 AM
I didn't mean to offend or disagree with anyone. It's just that it seems that our profession has such a long way to go in standardization and consistency of practice. I can also see where Stat would become disallusioned by a self-serving bureacracy that is willing to settle for bottom-feeders. After forty years in military and federal service, I feel your pain. I suppose its just wishful thinking that we could deal swift justice to those that would mock the idealistic public servants, both gov't/private. What I've heard Eric Holden preach is simply high standards and consistency of methods. I must say he is a bit folksy, but he puts on a first class seminar. It seems coincidental that the antipoly people are recruiting sexual offenders for interview in the same area that McCarthy operates. Perhaps we have had a mole for some time? Is McCarthy a member of this forum?
posted 04-21-2008 11:17 AM
I doubt he is a member---- if he knew what we talk about here, he 'd think twice before cozy'ing up with Maschke for a shoulder to cry on. His move to use antipolygraph.org as a bullypulpit is uninformed and evn worse for him (and better for Holden and associates) in that he has jeopardized his suit by publicaly making such a stupid "sword fight challenge" to his senior cohorts.
It is somewhat tragic that polygraph schools are too often unrealistic when giving information to students about what they must do---or what they are "owed" to succeed in this business once they obtain their handy dandy certificate. That's another topic altogether. Where's my prozac? lol
As far as I know, that examiner is not an APA member unless he joined recently. Perhaps that is a reason he can not obtain business. Many therapists who are ATSA members are aware of the APA and many of them will not use an examiner that is not a member of the APA. I guess going to the ATSA conferences has paid off for APA members.
posted 04-22-2008 09:02 PM
Brunswick asked if McCarthy is part of this forum. This thread is titled 'Is Joe McCarthy a Moron?' If he is not on the professional side, I find it extremely coincidental that he just posted a HUGE book at AP and in it he states 'only a 'moron' would say that polygraph, as a whole, is unbeatable'....
posted 04-23-2008 07:25 AM
The inflamatory title was meant to gain attention. It's called flame baiting. Now he is tested in front of his polygraph peers as to express where his ultimate loyalty lies. I expected someone to come to his defense here----maybe even he himself. I'm only a guy with a computer.
posted 04-23-2008 08:20 AM
Donna, nice retort to Joe at antiP. He is clearly posting under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and he is fast becoming the poster child of moronism in our field. Also, when you type 3000 word rants of any kind, the word "moron" has a good chance of making the cut, if the writer fancies the word---and if they grow tired of repeating "idiot" and need a good synonym. I think it's a coincidence----unless a school chum told him the title of my post.
Can someone ask Sam Braddock to contact Joe about his drunkin idiocy at antipolygraph? I lost his number when he moved. I think Sam ---provided he reads the blather---can talk Joe down from his 3ft high ledge with a simple phone call. I think it's time Obi Won called Joe before he is seduced by the sith.(can't resist a Star Wars analogy)
I think every examiner should be exposed to a formal CEU training course on not just countermeasures, but the antipolygraph movement and it's players and their methods of public discourse. I would be happy to teach such a course.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-23-2008).]
posted 04-23-2008 09:20 PM
Joe talks about ROSS. Do we know where he learned to emphasize that. Its similar to Nate Gordon's "horizontal scoring" (not sure why he calls it that because researchers everywhere know what rank systems are, but call a rank system a "horizontal" system and all you do is create confusion by making up a new name for something that already exists.) Perhaps Nate Gordon knows him. He might be responsive to a mentor.
Someone should also advise Joe that and scoring system based on ranks will never achieve construct validity for mixed-issues PCSOT testing. Rank system destroy/replace between quesion variance (with an arbitrarity uniform variance). They do this on purpose - that's why we like to use them with really messy non-normal data. However, with PCSOT testing (mixed issues) we are forced to deal with the questions individually - only now the between question variance is gone. To data, I have seen or heard of no real mathematical solution to this. Any solution is fictional, pretense, and empirically irresponsible. So, yes you can do it procedurally, but it lacks mathematical validity, and I doubt it will hold up to empirical scrutiny with real data. MGQT/spot rules with 3 position scoring offer greater construct validity, but there are problems and compromises there too (some of these problems at least have solutions).
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
I believe we are witnessing a man decompensating (falling apart) before our eyes. He is divorcing himself from reality and is determined to explode Dallas Ft Worth polygraph as it sits. This is by far the most telling "reality shows" I have ever witnessed----I mean to see this guy going positively crazy, it's painful yet unbelievably fascinating. Is anyone else reading this guy's stuff on antipolygraph???!!! Has anyone contacted Sam Braddock??!
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-24-2008).]
posted 04-24-2008 02:44 PM
I sense that if Joe does not get a certain outcome out of his battles, he could be dangerous. Joe's last diatribe reminds me of this "falling down" decompensation;
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-24-2008).]
posted 04-24-2008 03:29 PM
First off I am not in agreement with the posts made by Mr. McCarthy on the Anti Poly Site, but I as well as others understand in Wisconsin understand his frustration with what he is dealing with. We brought these somewhat same concerns to the State of Wisconsin regarding State Contracts and RFB's and subsequent contract awards to Behavioral Measures as well. The RFP changes that were made and the cozy relationship between the provider and employer are clear.
So we feel Mr. McCarthy's pain and wish him well. I though as stated from the begining wish he would have stayed away from the George Site! But then again frustrated as he was where else could he have gone? APA?
As an after thought and since reading the previous replies to this post, I have to ask Dan S, do you really think its the lack of his attendance at ATSA conferences that cost him his work? You know as well as I, as to what is going on down there!
[This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 04-24-2008).]
posted 04-25-2008 07:35 AM
Where could he have gone Toneill? How about here. A quick phone call or even a modest web search would have brought him here. And we would have been more than interested to know of any possible monopolies---despite the fact that SEVERAL businesses were named in his lawsuit, which basically negates any accusation of a "monopoly"--note the key of the word is "mono."
Instead of allowing a person such as Joe---a man clearly on the brink of a meltdown----plead the case against "good ole boyism"---you, with your more measured communication skills could bring such things to the front burner. Some are, and some are not aware that Behavior Measures is a forceful business---and I am aware that Bill Sheevy (sp?) heads up that branch in the dairy state. I am told Bill is every bit the forceful businessman Rick is. In business---and trust me on this---you must be able to sell your stuff and move where the opportunity exists, rather than bitching and moaning because a given market is sold and loyal to a given set of vendors. Too often I see retired lawman or dreamers (me being formerly the latter) who give very little thought to just what the hell they are doing before they begin a venture. Ironically, the first step in developing a business plan is to investigate thoroughly---which is exactly what I have seen actual investigaters NOT do. Odd to say the least. If he were "on the couch", I suspect Joe McCarthy would be as angry with himself as he is with his local market forces----for thinking he can talk about what a great examiner he is with only a couple of disappointing years of post-polygraph school, a low price, and a goal of catching baddies, but not impress the locals with junkmail and promises/assurances for which he has no proven history to base such things on.
I sympathize with Joe as a human being, but not as a professional. His professional integrity has been replaced by petulance, revenge, and personal ruin. He and George have more in common then either would care to admit.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-25-2008).]
posted 04-25-2008 10:17 AM
I agree with the principals of Fair Market Dynamics and the idea that if you sell a good product and better then the other guy's, it sells itself. I also believe that I have an ethical responsibility as a polygraph examiner, to be well informed of my trade and network as much as I can in doing so. I stay current with my membership with the APA, Wisc Poly Assn and of course this forum. If I've never said it before "Ralph Thank You". I as well as many other members of the polygraph community aren't or had not been as savvy to what are out there for examiners resources on the web or they don't have access to it. I for one have encouraged many of our association members to join "The Polygraph Place" not so much for the advertising (Sorry Ralph, I don't discourage it either though) but more so again for the networking. Back to Fair Market...I think if you were aware of all the facts related to the situation in Wisconsin you would agree that the issue is far from "Fair Play". Knowing this I am passionate about the idea that a State Government should never sully the playing field with back room bargains for any vendor. There were and are quite a few examiners that we know or should know of that had practiced PCSOT for the State of Wisconsin prior to the changes being made in the RFB's that accommodated one and excluded the others. That is not in my opinion, selling a better product. Again I don't agree with airing the dirty laundry on any Anti Polygraph Site..there are venues such as here to do so, but if we are all honest to ourselves about this, if you had the same situation would you knowing what you know of the "good ole boy" issues feel that you could mediate this somewhere else?
I believe and hope that others will note, outside of the affect this has had on Mc Carthy as an individual entity that others be more aware of the ramifications that may come there way with the elimination of "Fair Play".
When we dealt with our issue we took note that Texas Dept's had the PCSOT examiner list that they worked from and thought how that explained as to why Behavioral Measures came here to do what they did. It was believed that at least they (Trained, Certified, Members of TAPE) had a fair shot at doing what they do. They had their act together. Obviously as pointed out now..it doesn't matter.
I finally read all the garbage on GM's site last night and take issue with some of the things Mc Carthy had posted, but once I got through it all (and correct me if I'm wrong) he really hasn't done anything to bash our profession other then post it there.
posted 04-25-2008 11:26 AM
Tony, as always, a great post. I gotta disagree though. First, you have to understand how large municipal contracts work (if you don't already know.) Here is the recipe;
1.Approach the executive branch.
2. Demonstrate vast knowledge and experience in the field, with impeccable referances.
3. Show ability to grow.
4. Make a bid for hundreds if not thousands of tests at a very low unit price---all to be administered within a year's time. This enables vendors a "cruise control" effect versus a municipality micro manage the work.
5. HAVE A CONTRACT READY---don't ask a state to do the legal work! Have a good contract lawyer. Get in writing a "First Right of Refusal" agreement. This gurantees that when the year is up, your company will get the first crack at the next years' bid.
5B. Know all ofthe federal grants--such as CASOM and others that states can apply for to pay for/subsidize the program. Do the legwork for them regarding grants. This service alone is priceless to government officials. Don't believe me?--Just look on the internet at all of the DOJ grants regarding sex offender monitoring and/or supervision services/community corrections.
6. Get "Requisite Vendor Standards Authorship" at the signing of the contract. This allows the winner to MAKE THE PREREQUISITES for any future bidders. Say you have a Master's degree, but your competition does not----so you write the state standard that the administrator of a polygraph program MUST have a Master's degree. There are a million ways to block competition through Right to Author Standards procedure from a state contract. I'd be happy to list more examples if others are interested.
7. Do the work you agreed to----and add in the contract a stiff monetary penalty (usually 50-100K) if the work is not accomplished in the timeframe agreed. Such an expiration Gurantee is VERY attractive to municipalities----and it is a great self-inflicted motivater for the vendor.
8. Sew/root yourself into the system as a vendor----design protocols and forms for service to be handled by all contact parties. It makes for replacement very costly in terms of manhours and moral for the affected parties which the vendor serves.Some contracts are continuously renewed simply because a state is too lazy to redesign a system of protocols the original vendor set in place.
Too often there are graduates of polygraph schools who don't seem to know a thing about business---by no fault of their own, but at the cost of everything they worked for. A sole vendor has very little power against experienced businesspersons who know the game. Getting indigent contracts for pcsot isn't rocket science, but then again it's not something they teach in business school either.
An examiner such as Joe who thinks he can get his license and hang out a shingle and be a player is a fool. Eric Holden is a glad-handing, back-slapping, self promoting, vociferous and forceful examiner for a reason. You really have to be a cocky, talented, big thinking business person to work a major metropolitan district---lest you disappear into the shy, modest, forgettable void that is the path to either bankruptcy or if you're lucky, sustained poverty.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-25-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-25-2008).]
I believe you misread what I had posted about ATSA. What I said is that the treatment providers are being encouraged to use APA members to conduct PCSOT exams. This why the APA has been going to the ATSA conferences and setting up a booth in their exhbit hall. I also believe that at one point the ATSA memebers had written in their standards that they would have to use APA members.
What I had mentioned about the examiner in Texas was that he probably wasn't a member of the APA. If the contract has a requirement for APA status, perhaps that is the reason why he is not getting the business.
I know that the folks in Wisconsin have some issues with how the contracts are written up but again the only way to combat that is with the local folks. There is no way a professional organization can step in and dicate what requirements are needed. If the Contracting Officer decides that they want a minimum of 5,000 tests conducted thenthat is up to them. I have seen plenty of contracts that have be written specifically for certain companies but that is the world of contracting.
posted 04-25-2008 12:42 PM
Dan perhaps I did misread your post about the ATSA and the APA. I guess one of the points that I tried to make but may have presented it too veiled, was that not all polygraph examiners that are PCSOT are members of the APA nor may they be members of this forum either. This may be by choice for their own reasons or they may just not know. I'm sure that when an examiner goes to a PCSOT class that it isn't a pre-requisite that they be a member of the APA. Our association is comprised like many of government and private examiners. They also belong or don't belong to many of the other mentioned organizations.One thing for sure though is that our membership is obliged to follow the Standards and Ethics of the APA and that is the thread that binds the cloth for us.
Tony
[This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 04-25-2008).]
posted 04-25-2008 03:20 PM
If Mr. McCarthy feels slighted and files his suit - that is an appropriate venue. When McCarthy posts it at AP, tries to recruit SO’s for his suit at AP, vents about everything but the kitchen sink (he may have even done that), vents about past grief over the loss of a family member….must I go on? Oh yeah, explains polygraphs, scoring, acts as he is the only ‘fair’ examiner and everyone else is doing wrong, slanders everyone involved, and expects compassion.
I made a comment that I respect Holden and think he has assisted the polygraph profession. He then turns around and accuses me of either being Holden’s paramour, on the take with him, or being his wife. McCarthy is a brick short or not of sound mind.
He posts at AP - on the very site that tells convicted sex offenders to lie and withhold information from their therapists, PO’s and polygraph examiners and convinces them to use countermeasures.
In my book, if he had a case, his rants/raves/slanders statements should be used against him in the very law suit he filed. With his posts, I can understand why he did not get referrals.
Lastly, regardless of if someone thinks he is ‘bashing’, his continued (extremely long)posts hurt the polygraph profession and make us all look bad. I for one am sick and tired of some examiners getting their feelings hurt and then venting or providing information to the biggest polygraph web site that tries to abolish our profession.
posted 04-25-2008 09:08 PM
Barry, I vote moron----but even morons deserve our compassion. If I had to bet money--based on his writings----he has suffered a recent divorce, probably lost his home, and probably has a severe clinical depression. The problem is that when good people "fall down hard," they can act like a real moron.
posted 04-25-2008 09:43 PM
Whats the Vote! Nice! I may just be a little too soft on this but I'm comfortable with that. I know from the replies to this, that we along with other feelings, have compassion for McCarthy. I though, find it very insincere that this forum ask Why didn't he come here yet in all the replies the real issues of "Fair Play" are ignored with exception that its "Business". I've never met Mr. Holden so I have no personal opinion as to what kind of man he is or isn't. I've met Mr. Shevy and I do hold an opinion of him and its pretty much the same opinion shared by others. I have quite the respect for any person in our field that has accomplished and contributed so much as Mr. Holden has as well. Regardless, what is right is right. Each of us should contribute to what is right!
McCarthy had not chosen the appropriate venue to push forward his cause but its still a cause. If it was only he screaming "Foul" neither I nor hardly anyone else would deserve to give it a second look. This issue will have a long standing impact on PCSOT examiners in Texas if left unchecked. We had it happen here!
I've asked this question before of our PCSOT trainers of APA accredited caliber. What do you tell the student from Wisconsin when he comes to the PCSOT course? Do you tell him thanks for coming we wish you luck in your career as a APA PCSOT examiner, Where other then Wisconsin (Texas) are you going to practice?
As far as judging Joe McCarthy I'll hold out the same No Opinion that I do for Mr. Holden. I don't have enough information about either men and I only believe half of what I see or hear and not much more than that of what I read.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Had to throw the quote in there. Seemed appropriate seeing we are holding ourselves out as a place of arbitration.
No Hard feelings in this, just a little miffed!
Go ahead if you feel you can "Vote"...last thing I voted for on this site was what the submitted charts tracing reactions were or were not (Pregnant) and I won!
posted 04-26-2008 04:33 AM
I know Erick Holden and other examiners that work with him. They have high ethical standards and are skilled. I am sure the other examiners that Mr. McCarthy has named in his suit are also ethical and good examiners. Holden helped establish the standards and gives classes for PCSOT examinations, he is highly qualified and skilled. He is also highly ethical.
That being said, I am aware of the manner in which Texas Probation Departments pick and choose examiners, you either get them on your side or you kiss your business goodbye. Probation officers are not educated polygraph examiners and they do want their probationers to go to the examiners they approve. I agree with the principal of allowing probationers to go to the examiner of their choice, and that is the mandate given probation officers, so I also understand the legal basis of McCarthy's suit. I don't know McCarthy, nor his qualifications, I do agree that if he is qualified it is unethical to deny him the opportunity to conduct examinations in PCSOT.
posted 04-26-2008 07:04 AM
The ends do not justify the means. It is too bad that Joe didn't have the right forum in place for his case----HERE. We could have had a most spirited debate on this board, and provided him with the emotional support he needs. We are brothers and sisters here. At anti, we are cannon fodder.
posted 04-26-2008 11:53 AM
In Utah, all examiners who meet the state standards for PCSOT examinations (i.e., graduate of a recognized school; licensed by the state; and graduate of a recognized 40-hour PCSOT training course) are listed on a Utah government web site. http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/offenders/sexoffendertreatment/polygraphers.html
Formerly, the therapists and treatment providers used the list to select the examiner. In a policy change a year or two ago, the sex offenders themselves are now allowed to choose any examiner on the list. I don’t think this is a particularly good idea. By definition, half of any profession is below average, and people tend to charge what they’re worth. Low quality practitioners tend to have below average fees. When offenders are free to select their own examiner, word quickly gets around within the offender community as to which examiners conduct rigorous and thorough exams (and usually charge accordingly), and who the low price chart rollers are who tend to pass most of their examinees. Three guesses as to whom the offenders select.
Please keep in mind that I am talking in generalities here. I do not know the Texas situation and the merits of most individual examiners there. I’m speaking strictly from my own perspective.
posted 04-26-2008 02:25 PM
So McCarthy has finally been informed of this site. To me, he is a day late and a dollar short, plus a few insults too many. I will not be offering him compassion so I will stay away from his post. My only hope is that he will not be allowed access to this professional forum as he has already shown his true colors.
posted 04-26-2008 03:35 PM
Well, I'll give it a try as I'm curious as to what his issue really is. The "my enemy's enemy is my friend" line is disturbing, but I'll let that go for now. (He's got to know he's the AP's enemy too.)
posted 04-26-2008 05:28 PM
As far as the mentioned examinees choosing the examiner for PCSOT, we (Our Association) received a complaint (Well Written) from a client that basically complained of failing three PCSOT exams given by the same BM examiner and that he was kicked out of his therapy group and suffered sanctions from the Therapist. We recognized among other questionable issues he brought up (thought and fantasy questions) from what he stated that there was a need for another examiner to step in and conduct the exams (examiner conditioning or whatever verbiage you want to associate with this, I just can't recall the term)anyhow, we couldn't do anything for him except to give him references from the APA standards and ethics as well as contact information for the APA. Also and obvious from the phone calls we field from Atty's and patients regarding the same issues over the past few years they recognize and state the same problem. There is no option for them to have a different examiner and with the situation the way it is even if they did have a different examiner it would be from the same contracted company.
Just wanted to throw this out there as it runs with the idea of what affect a "Closed Shop" has.
As far as McCarthy coming on board The Polygraph Place...I would like to believe that its never too late and even though, Welcome! Perhaps now we can ask questions and let him do the same. If you want to stick your head in the sand then thats your choice, as well. There is an uncontested free market in doing so.
posted 04-26-2008 07:34 PM
I think he should be allowed a probationary membership. We have to ask ourselves, is he more dangerous to himself and others WITH or WITHOUT Plygraph Place? I haven't the foggiest. Does he have a future in polygraph? Can any existing member vouch for him and perhaps submit through the existing member a brief thesis as to why he would like to be a member here and what in the name of Christ was he thinking over the last month (in less than 500 words, please)? Are those questions too arrogant for lil'o us, or is his trustworthiness gone altogether and no such litmus exists.
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 04-20-2008 01:38 PM
posted 04-20-2008 11:09 PM
posted 04-21-2008 10:31 AM
posted 04-23-2008 08:42 PM
770)730-0033 Ext 5122
